Sure, though that's a slightly different issue. The person I was responding to was specifically criticizing our primitive ego driven tendencies. But as social mammals 'our' primitive tendencies have included some of what is best about us, I would say, going back through a number of ancestors and can been seen in other species of social mammals today.commonsense wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2023 7:34 pmI also would not want such a robot as you describe to be utilized in a position that would require feelings.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Sep 27, 2023 2:43 amOur primitive or 'primitive' tendencies include empathy, urges to connect socially and love. So, machines lack those. I wouldn't let a babysitter or teacher who lacked a range of primitive social mammal tendencies anywhere near my child. Not my planet if I had some way to prevent it. And of course corporations and governments often manage to act like life forms that do not have these tendencies, even though their 'cells' are at least supposedly human.
I would add, though, that such is the current state of robotics. Technologists may successfully mimic human emotions in their robots going forward .
I am critical of the thinking good/primitive emotions bad schema. That's not exactly what lacewing said, but that's the area I was reacting to.
As far as future AIs/robots I'm sure they are tinkering their way in that direction.
I think they're nuts and risking all life on earth and there are even experts in the AI field, some quite high up in it, who are dropping out out of the same concerns.
Not that this will stop us from playing with things we should know we don't know if we are competent enough to play with safely.
In the old days the side effects of this play were, relatively, local.
But now we play with nanotech, gm lifeforms and AI, accidents with which may make Chernobyl look like a little neighborhood scuffle, even the vastly worse consequences of Chernobyl that were narrowly avoided by some heroes who were killed by their service (most of them).